Where are you finding this?
What do you mean by “directly observe”? Do you mean steps smaller than we see in the fossil record? That’s a common creationist trope: every new transitional fossil produces two new gaps, because nothing can be gradual enough for them. As for you.
It shows nothing of the sort. How would you imagine it did?
Why?
The difficulty, of course, which no amount of hand-waving and hollering can deal with, is that one who seeks to up-end our current understanding both of quantum physics AND evolutionary biology needs to begin by being familiar with – and, actually, expert in – both. By your own admissions you are neither. So why are we having this conversation? I can generate pages and pages of quantum woo speculation about biology just as easily as you can. The difference would not be the merit of the work; the difference would be that I would know I was generating nonsense, where you apparently do not.
You have been perfectly clear: You are now admitting you have never read a single critical response to Orch-OR!
Congratulations, your opinions are worthless. Let me know when you have actually read the replies to it, until then you have nothing of worth to say about anything.
You said that knowing/understanding the basics of quantum physics was required to make your case. You were making your case. You do not get to cry foul if one naturally infers you are claiming to know/understand the basics of quantum physics. You do not get to cry foul if you claim you studied quantum physics online, despite your materials possibly not including even the very beginnings of the subject. You stressed, when ever I first proposed to subject you to this test, that it should only contain questions about the basics, and on what is relevant, after already emphasizing that the basics were. You do not get to cry foul now that exactly such materials have been chosen. You talked a big game, now let’s see you play it.
You either answer the challenge or you do not. Demonstrate that you understand anything about quantum physics, then we can talk about its frontiers and fringes of frontiers. In fact, I’ll even suggest to my fellow board users, humbly, that they shrug off any reference you make to this subject until at least after you make some attempt at demonstrating quantifiable competency in it, such as an adequate reply to the challenge.
Because their whole thesis revolves around quantum physics and molecular biology. FFS.
My emphasis:
@Meerkat_SK5 can’t see how a quantum physicist might be suitably qualified to assess physics and quantum mechanics.
Apparently online quantum physics differs sufficiently from basic quantum physics that studying the former left @Meerkat_SK5 ignorant of the latter.
There is evidence, literally mountains of evidence in the case of fossils. It seems that in the two years since you started participating here, asking for serious criticism of your own efforts, you have learned nothing about how hypotheses are formed, tested, and falsified. I think your efforts to redefined the argument to suit your purpose is misguided and wrong; saying there is no evidence for common descent is a pretty good example of this.
You stated:
The clear implication here is that, as you are “mak[ing] [your] case” here, you are claiming to “know the basics of quantum physics” and have “read enough about it online” to do so.
The problem here is that all physics has its basis in applied mathematics – and this includes quantum physics.
The “basics” of all physics is math – and this again includes quantum physics.
If you don’t understand the math, then you cannot “know the basics of quantum physics”.
This has meant that far from successfully “mak[ing] [your] case”, what you have in fact done is convince everybody (with the possible exception of a few like the already-known-to-be-mathematically-challenged @colewd) that you have no idea what you’re talking about.
The math is particularly important in determining if quantum effects can be stretched sufficiently far as to justify ORCH-OR’s claims – questions over which appearing to be one of the major criticisms of ORCH-OR.
One may stress, the mathematical challenge isn’t even all that tough here. A couple derivatives, a couple more integrals, mostly, some sixth grade level rearranging of terms. Probably the toughest one is solving a homogeneous linear second order ordinary differential equation, but there exists a general solution for those, so it’s again just some shuffling terms to and fro to get at the coefficients. All of that should go automatically, no trouble at all. And, indeed, there is no way for me to reliably recognize if @Meerkat_SK5 is copying his results from some other source or online calculators (that’s not to say some specific ones don’t leave their mark; be warned), or has someone else entirely do the challenge for them. Still, the calculating is what awards the most points, simply because doing it by hand would be the most work. The understanding-the-subject part is before it. It’s the part that connects the question with the first step of the solution. Here, again, I’m not testing @Meerkat_SK5’s inherent smart-ness, but their knowledge of the subject. If they learned what the things in question mean, then they’ll be able to write down what ever definition, and from there it’s smooth sailing, “just” calculating. That they should weasel around it so much instead of just doing it is… a mystery, if I want to be unduly charitable.
I just wanted to thank all the people here who replied to Meerkat or commented on Meerkat’s arguments. For keeping M here and out of other threads and sites. A great help to us all.
You should have led with this. The response is, OF COURSE, because we cannot prove a negative. If the only evidence that will satisfy you is proof of a negative, will will be waiting a LONG time.
Yes - proving a negative is unreasonable. 
No, Darwin did not suggest that. You (or some-one else you are copying) reversed the order of those sentences. That last sentence is not even about fossils.
You are lying about your sources again.
No, I don’t think you have. Technobabble does not a demonstration of understanding make. Pass the test, then we’ll talk.
No, we shan’t. Not until you have demonstrated that you know any of the basics at all. I am not discussing the frontiers or fringes of frontiers with someone who is refusing to show any amount of a grasp of even the most foundational concepts of the subject taught within literally the first month of any course, online or off.
You said the basics of quantum physics were relevant to your case. Required, even. I will not restructure the challenge. It is already maximally lenient. You either respond to it, like someone who actually knows even the first thing about quantum mechanics would, or you do not, like someone who does not would. That is your choice. I’m not transforming it into a technobabble quiz just because your “various sources” included nothing else. If your case requires an understanding of the basics, I submit that one ought know some of them before making it. You have no reason to be bargaining over a test this generous, if you do.
I asked:
You answered without naming a single critical review. Guess what that means? It means I stand to my word, and interpret it as an admission you’ve read none.
Now you name one thing you’ve read. An honors thesis. Are you joking? Was that a joke? If so: Well played, that’s hilarious.
If you’re serious… I’ll take that as another admission you’ve read no actual critical reviews.
Now, we both know that you’ve never actually read the Origin and are only taking that fragment from some creationist site. And that site has clearly snipped out the bits where Darwin provides a credible explanation, which you of course have never bothered to look up. I see no reason to respond to the quote mine. Let me submit that no number of fossils would be “enough” to satisfy your demands for “large-scale changes in real time”, whatever that means.
What kind of evidence, exactly? Please be clear. Is it something we would actually expect to see given common descent? I don’t think you’ve thought this through.
No, still not correct. It in fact shows nothing relevant to our discussion.
What does that have to do with suspecting created kinds. You persist in answering my questions with vague gibberish, when you bother to answer at all.
Darwin wasn’t expecting that, which you would know if you had ever read the Origin instead of just creationist quote mines.
Because it’s not actually what we would expect to see given common descent and the nature of the fossil record. That is, as far as can be told from your vague description.
The common designer might have made the changes in a gradual way. Therefore common design could easily be used to “explain” that kind of evidence. Unless you have a specific designer or process in mind that would not allow for gradual changes.
I put “explain” in quotation marks because if the natures of the designer and/or the process are not made more specific, common design can explain anything. Which, when it comes to science, I believe, means it explains nothing.
Quote Mining should be flagged, even in this thread.
Better auto-flag all of his posts then.
How could you know that if you haven’t read them?!
Darwin did not expect this. He gave reasons why he thought this wouldn’t be found.